Section 465: Repeal of certain enactments and savings

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 465

Section 465 repeals the Companies Act, 1956 and the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961, while enacting extensive savings provisions to preserve existing corporate rights, pending proceedings, appointments, and subordinate legislation.

  • Repeal of Predecessor Company Enactments: Formally repeals the Companies Act, 1956 and the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961 upon phased commencement of the 2013 Act.
  • Comprehensive Savings Clause: Preserves the legal personality of companies incorporated under previous laws, validly executed deeds, registered charges, appointments, and rules framed under the 1956 Act until superseded.
  • Preservation of Pending Inquiries and Trials: Prescribes that pending legal proceedings, prosecutions, and investigations initiated under the 1956 Act shall continue and be disposed of in accordance with the 1956 Act, save as otherwise expressly transferred.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Action Ispat and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 641: Examined the interplay between Section 465 savings and Section 434 transfer provisions, holding that pending winding-up petitions under the 1956 Act are subject to transfer to NCLT unless an irreversible stage has been reached.
  • Forech India Ltd. v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2019) 18 SCC 549: Held that Section 465 savings must be read harmoniously with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, allowing creditors to seek resolution under the IBC despite pending winding-up proceedings under the 1956 Act.
  • State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 84: Laid down the authoritative test for savings clauses, holding that repeal does not obliterate vested rights or past transactions unless a contrary intention appears explicitly in the repealing statute.
  • Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557: Affirmed that accrued substantive rights and liabilities under repealed statutes survive through savings provisions unless expressly destroyed by the new enactment.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When prosecuting or defending corporate actions instituted under the 1956 Act (e.g. old misfeasance summonses or pending winding up), verify under Section 465(2) whether the substantive rights accrued under the 1956 Act are preserved or whether the procedural transfer mechanisms of Section 434 and IBC have superseded them.